An increase in reactive oxygen species underlies neonatal cerebellum repair

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Pakula et al. explore the impact of reactive oxygen species (ROS) on neonatal cerebellar regeneration, providing evidence that ROS activates regeneration through Nestin-expressing progenitors (NEPs). Using scRNA-seq analysis of FACS-isolated NEPs, the authors characterize injury-induced changes, including an enrichment in ROS metabolic processes within the cerebellar microenvironment. Biochemical analyses confirm a rapid increase in ROS levels following irradiation, and forced catalase expression, which reduces ROS levels, and impairs external granule layer (EGL) replenishment post-injury.

Strengths:

Overall, the study robustly supports its main conclusion and provides valuable insights into ROS as a regenerative signal in the neonatal cerebellum.

Weaknesses:

Below are specific comments and concerns:

(1) The diversity of cell types recovered from scRNA-seq libraries of sorted Nes-CFP cells is unexpected, especially the inclusion of minor types such as microglia, meninges, and ependymal cells. The authors should validate whether Nes and CFP mRNAs are enriched in the sorted cells; if not, they should discuss the potential pitfalls in sampling bias or artifacts that may have affected the dataset, impacting interpretation.
(2) The authors should de-emphasize that ROS signaling and related gene upregulation exclusively in gliogenic NEPs. Genes such as Cdkn1a, Phlda3, Ass1, and Bax are identified as differentially expressed in neurogenic NEPs and granule cell progenitors (GCPs), with Ass1 absent in GCPs. According to Table S4, gene ontology (GO) terms related to ROS metabolic processes are also enriched in gliogenic NEPs, neurogenic NEPs, and GCPs.
(3) The authors need to justify the selection of only the anterior lobe for EGL replenishment and microglia quantification.
(4) Figure 1K: The figure presents linkages between genes and GO terms as a network but does not depict a gene network. The terminology should be corrected accordingly.
(5) Figure 1H and S2: The x-axis appears to display raw p-values rather than log10(p.value) as indicated. The x-axis should ideally show -log10(p.adjust), beginning at zero. The current format may misleadingly suggest that the ROS GO term has the lowest p-values.
(6) Genes such as Ppara, Egln3, Foxo3, Jun, and Nos1ap were identified by bulk ATAC-seq based on proximity to peaks, not by scRNA-seq. Without additional expression data, caution is needed when presenting these genes as direct evidence of ROS involvement in NEPs.
(7) The authors should annotate cell identities for the different clusters in Table S2.
(8) Reiterative clustering analysis reveals distinct subpopulations among gliogenic and neurogenic NEPs. Could the authors clarify the identities of these subclusters? Can we distinguish the gliogenic NEPs in the Bergmann glia layer from those in the white matter?
(9) In the Methods section, the authors mention filtering out genes with fewer than 10 counts. They should specify if these genes were used as background for enrichment analysis. Background gene selection is critical, as it influences the functional enrichment of gene sets in the list.
(10) Figure S1C: The authors could consider using bar plots to better illustrate cell composition differences across conditions and replicates.
(11) Figures 4-6: It remains unclear how the white matter microglia contribute to the recruitment of BgL-NEPs to the EGL, as the mCAT-mediated microglia loss data are all confined to the white matter.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors have previously shown that the mouse neonatal cerebellum can regenerate damage to granule cell progenitors in the external granular layer, through reprogramming of gliogenic nestin-expressing progenitors (NEPs). The mechanisms of this reprogramming remain largely unknown. Here the authors used scRNAseq and ATACseq of purified neonatal NEPs from P1-P5 and showed that ROS signatures were transiently upregulated in gliogenic NEPs ve neurogenic NEPs 24 hours post injury (P2). To assess the role of ROS, mice transgenic for global catalase activity were assessed to reduce ROS. Inhibition of ROS significantly decreased gliogenic NEP reprogramming and diminished cerebellar growth post-injury. Further, inhibition of microglia across this same time period prevented one of the first steps of repair - the migration of NEPs into the external granule layer. This work is the first demonstration that the tissue microenvironment of the damaged neonatal cerebellum is a major regulator of neonatal cerebellar regeneration. Increased ROS is seen in other CNS damage models including adults, thus there may be some shared mechanisms across age and regions, although interestingly neonatal cerebellar astrocytes do not upregulate GFAP as seen in adult CNS damage models. Another intriguing finding is that global inhibition of ROS did not alter normal cerebellar development.

Strengths:

This paper presents a beautiful example of using single cell data to generate biologically relevant, testable hypotheses of mechanisms driving important biological processes. The scRNAseq and ATACseq analyses are rigorously conducted and conclusive. Data is very clearly presented and easily interpreted supporting the hypothesis next tested by reduce ROS in irradiated brains.

Analysis of whole tissue and FAC sorted NEPS in transgenic mice where human catalase was globally expressed in mitochondria were rigorously controlled and conclusively show that ROS upregulation was indeed decreased post injury and very clearly the regenerative response was inhibited. The authors are to be commended on the very careful analyses which are very well presented and again, easy to follow with all appropriate data shown to support their conclusions.

Weaknesses:

The authors also present data to show that microglia are required for an early step of mobilizing gliogenic NEPs into the damaged EGL. While the data that PLX5622 administration from P0-P5 or even P0-P8 clearly shows that there is an immediate reduction of NEPs mobilized to the damaged EGL, there is no subsequent reduction of cerebellar growth such that by P30, the treated and untreated irradiated cerebella are equivalent in size. There is speculation in the discussion about why this might be the case, but there is no explanation for why further, longer treatment was not attempted nor was there any additional analyses of other regenerative steps in the treated animals. The data still implicate microglia in the neonatal regenerative response, but how remains uncertain.